NSCN-IM splits: Big jolt for Naga peace talks?

The decision by a breakaway faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) to establish a "provisional government" has raised fresh concerns over the future of the Naga peace process.

The group also declared that the spirit of the 1997 ceasefire with the Centre has "ceased to exist", signalling what could be the biggest crisis since the 2015 Framework Agreement.

While rival factions and parallel governments have periodically emerged during the long history of the Naga insurgency, the latest split is significant because it reflects growing disillusionment within the NSCN-IM over the direction of the peace process itself.

Also read: NSCN-IM chief Muivah returns to native Manipur village after 60 years | Ground Report

By accusing both the Centre and the organisation's leadership of abandoning the goal of Naga sovereignty, the breakaway faction has cast fresh doubts over whether any eventual settlement can still command acceptance across the broader insurgent ranks.

The NSCN-IM is the principal insurgent organisation that has remained New Delhi's negotiating partner for nearly three decades.

Leadership accused of abandoning goal

The breakaway group, led by the Myanmar-based Eastern Flank under Ikato Chishi Swu, son of NSCN co-founder Isak Chishi Swu, has accused the existing leadership of abandoning the goal of Naga sovereignty, compromising the movement during prolonged negotiations with the Centre, and violating the organisation's own constitution by accepting proposals that implicitly recognise the Indian Constitution.

In a resolution adopted after a high-level meeting, the faction rejected the expulsion of several senior leaders, declared the disciplinary proceedings against them null and void, announced the formation of a provisional government, and resolved to continue both political and armed resistance.

It also asserted that the ceasefire had effectively lost its relevance after what it described as the Centre's refusal to honour the 2015 agreement, particularly over the issues of a separate Naga flag and constitution.

Although the declaration does not automatically translate into renewed armed conflict, it has fundamentally reshaped the contours of one of India's longest-running insurgencies.

For more than a decade, New Delhi's peace strategy has rested on the assumption that the NSCN-IM remained the principal stakeholder capable of carrying the larger Naga movement towards a negotiated settlement.

The 2015 agreement was projected as the foundation for a comprehensive political solution after the 1997 ceasefire brought an end to large-scale hostilities.

'Will wide Naga insurgency accept deal with Muivah leadership?'

"The emergence of an organised faction comprising several senior political and military leaders of the NSCN-IM has raised a critical question. Even if the Centre reaches a deal with the Thuingaleng Muivah-led leadership, will it be accepted across the wider Naga insurgency?" asked Major General Gaganjit Singh (Retd.), former deputy director general of India's Defence Intelligence Agency.

That question has become increasingly important because the peace talks have already remained unresolved despite repeated assurances over several years that an agreement was imminent.

If the Eastern Flank succeeds in attracting more senior commanders, cadres and influential tribal constituencies, it could weaken the NSCN-IM's claim to represent the largest section of the Naga insurgency.

Also read: Iron fist and velvet glove: Inside India’s Chanakyan strategy against Naga insurgents

Although New Delhi negotiates separately with the Working Committee of the Naga National Political Groups (WC-NNPG) and other militant groups that are in ceasefire, a divided NSCN-IM could make it far harder to secure a settlement that commands broad acceptance.

The latest split reflects bigger ideological differences than an ordinary organisational power struggle.

The breakaway faction has accused the existing leadership of diluting the movement's founding objective of complete Naga sovereignty by engaging in negotiations that increasingly focus on greater autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework.

Its resolution repeatedly refers to the alleged submission of documents titled "Competencies" to the Centre, claiming these effectively accepted the Indian Constitution and therefore violated both the NSCN manifesto and the Yehzabo, the organisation's constitution.

The faction has also criticised the continuation of negotiations after the Centre's reported position in 2019 that a separate Naga flag and constitution would not be accepted.

By establishing a provisional government, the group is attempting to project itself not merely as another dissident faction but as the legitimate political custodian of the Naga national movement.

That gives the split both symbolic and political significance, particularly because it is led by Ikato, whose family name carries considerable historical weight within the organisation.

Challenges for Centre

The development leaves the Centre facing difficult strategic choices.

Continuing negotiations exclusively with the Muivah-led leadership could leave sections of the insurgent movement outside any eventual settlement, raising the possibility that dissatisfied factions continue armed resistance even after an agreement is signed.

Opening parallel channels with the new faction may broaden political outreach but could simultaneously legitimise fragmentation and encourage further divisions within the movement.

Also read: Nagaland govt, Centre at odds over Frontier Nagaland Territory

Ignoring the split altogether carries its own risks if the breakaway group succeeds in expanding its organisational base or persuading other factions that the existing negotiations have abandoned the original political objectives.

Any of these scenarios could delay an already prolonged peace process.

The split also comes against the backdrop of renewed security concerns in the region.

Although the Eastern Flank has not formally announced a return to full-scale armed operations, its declaration that the spirit of the ceasefire no longer exists has raised concerns among security agencies about the possibility of localised violence, particularly along the India-Myanmar border where the faction maintains a significant presence.

Any weakening of organisational discipline within the NSCN-IM could allow local commanders or dissatisfied cadres greater operational autonomy even if the principal leadership continues to observe the ceasefire.

Security concerns over attacks on Assam Rifles

The security concerns have deepened following two recent attacks on Assam Rifles personnel.

Security agencies have attributed the deadly ambush in Ukrul, Manipur, on July 6 to the suspected Eastern Flank, while the faction is also under suspicion in another recent attack. Although the group has not claimed responsibility for either incident, the attacks highlighted the risks posed by the latest rupture.

The split also has a significant cross-border implication. The Eastern Flank operates from Myanmar, where prolonged instability since the 2021 military coup has reduced state control over parts of the frontier. That has created an environment in which insurgent groups can regroup and move more freely, complicating surveillance and counter-insurgency operations along the India-Myanmar border.